Straw: "large array of safeguards" against "petty" FOI requests

Responding to a recent question in the Commons from Norman Baker MP, Jack Straw confirmed the Government believes the FOI Act should be extended to the private sector. In response to a subsequent question about the need for amendments to guards against "repeated, petty and often exorbitant" requests, he replied that "there is already a large array of safeguards in the Act and within the practice of the Information Commissioner."
Hansard 29 Jan 2008 : Column 156

Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): What plans he has to bring forward amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [182471]

The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw): The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has now been in force for three years and appears to be working well, although we keep it under continuous review. We are not proceeding with amendments to the fees regulation. However, we are consulting on whether to extend FOI coverage to a range of organisations that are in the private sector, but carry out public functions. An independent review of the 30-year rule is under way and due to report this summer.

Norman Baker: I welcome that response, and agree with the direction of travel that the Secretary of State is taking. Does he agree that it is a nonsense that the British Potato Council is covered by the 2000 Act but private water companies, which provide an essential and monopolistic service, are not? Furthermore, the British Railways Board, which simply exists in a cosy corner somewhere, is covered, but Network Rail is not. Will he sort that out?

Mr. Straw: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and thank him for his earlier remarks. As the boundary between the public and private sectors for the delivery of what are essentially public services has moved, so we believe that the arrangements should move as well. That is why we are consulting on the matter.

Mr. Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): Would the Secretary of State consider amendments to the 2000 Act that would protect the public’s right to the information but guard against repeated, petty and often exorbitant requests that are made frequently and do nothing to add to freedom of information?

Mr. Straw: There is already a large array of safeguards in the Act and within the practice of the Information Commissioner. If the hon. Gentleman has specific examples of concern to him, I am ready to follow them up, including with the commissioner.

Comment on recent FOI announcements

A piece by Maurice Frankel on the recent FOI announcements by Gordon Brown has been published by Open Democracy on its OurKingdom site.

It can be read here.

Fees announcement

The government announced today that it has decided not to proceed with its proposals to amend the FOI fees regulations. Instead it has announced measures designed to make government more open including a review of the 30 year rule and consultation on extending the scope of the FOI Act.

In a speech on liberty the Prime Minister said:

"In the last ten years in Britain we have created a new legislative framework requiring openness and transparency in the state's relationships with the public. The Freedom of Information Act has been a landmark piece of legislation, enshrining for the first time in our laws the public's right to access information.

Freedom of Information (FoI) can be inconvenient, at times frustrating and indeed embarrassing for governments. But Freedom of Information is the right course because government belongs to the people, not the politicians.

I now believe there is more we can do to change the culture and the workings of government to make it more open -- whilst of course continuing to maintain safeguards in areas like national security.

When anything is provided without cost, it does risk being open to abuse. However the Government does not believe that more restrictive rules on cost limits of FoI requests are the way forward. And so Jack Straw has decided, and has announced today, that we will not tighten FoI fees regulations as previously proposed.

We do this because of the risk that such proposals might have placed unacceptable barriers between the people and public information. Public information does not belong to Government, it belongs to the public on whose behalf government is conducted. Wherever possible that should be the guiding principle behind the implementation of our Freedom of Information Act.

So it is right also to consider extending the coverage of freedom of information and the Freedom of Information Act. And we are also today publishing a consultation document to consider whether additional organisations discharging a public function - including in some instances private sector companies running services for the public sector - should be brought within the scope of Freedom of Information legislation.

Freedom of Information is not simply about current discussions within government but about the restrictions we place on the publication of historical documents.

It is an irony that the information that can be made available on request on current events and current decisions is still withheld as a matter of course for similar events and similar decisions that happened 20 or 25 years ago.

Under the present arrangements historical records are transferred to the national archives and are only opened to public access after thirty years or where explicitly requested under the FoI Act. It is time to look again at whether historical records can be made available for public inspection much more swiftly than under the current arrangements.

There are of course cost and security implications of a more open approach which we will need to examine thoroughly. So I have asked Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief of Associated Newspapers and member of the Press Complaints Commission - working with Sir Joe Pilling, former Permanent Secretary of the Northern Ireland Office, and the eminent historian David Cannadine - to review this rule. And we look forward to receiving their proposals in the first half of 2008."

The Campaign for Freedom of Information welcomed the announcement in a press release. The Campaign's director Maurice Frankel said:

"We are extremely pleased that instead of restricting the Act the government is proposing to extend it. The original proposals would have severely undermined the legislation and suggested that the government regretted introducing the FOI Act. Now for the first time we are seeing signs that it is taking pride in it instead."

The Government's response to the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee’s Report, 'Freedom of Information: the Government’s proposals for reform' has also been published today. Commenting on the Government’s response, Chairman of the Committee Rt Hon Alan Beith MP said:

“Obviously we greatly welcome the fact that the Government has seen sense and accepted our position - and that of the many people and organisations who have made good use of freer access to information - and not changed the charging regime as they had planned. To go ahead with their proposed changes would have been a great mistake – as the expression goes; it wasn’t broke, don’t fix it.

The government's response to the fees consultation and a summary of the responses is available here.

The consultation on extending the scope of the Act - 'Freedom of Information Act 2000: Designation of additional public authorities' is available here.

Information Rights User Group

The minutes of the seventh Information Rights User Group meeting held on 12th September 2007 have been published by the Ministry of Justice. The minutes confirm that an announcement on the outcome of fees consultation is imminent.

"The Government would announce its plans to take forward freedom of information, in the wake of the consultations on the Fees Regulations, in the autumn. There is enthusiasm for an iterative, non-adversarial and holistic approach to Information Rights generally, taking account of all aspects of publicly held information."

Read the minutes (Pdf).

Commons Committee rejects FOI restriction plans

Constitutional Affairs Committee press notice No. 35:

"An influential Committee of MPs has called on the Government to scrap its plans to restrict freedom of information and has criticized the Bill to exempt MPs from freedom of information rules.

In a report released today, Monday 25 June 2007, the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee says Ministers should take the opportunity afforded by their consultation on proposed changes to the charging regime for Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to abandon the “unnecessary, unpopular and undesirable” reforms.

The Committee says Government has not adequately weighed up the balance of costs and benefits to public authorities and the public of providing greater access to information and openness.

The Committee concludes:

“There is no objective evidence that any change is necessary. The cost-benefit analysis provided with the Government's consultation papers is incomplete. There is clear evidence that the proposed amendments could be open to manipulation and abuse. There is no sign that any consideration has been given to proper funding of the independent review process. The proposed measures have the scope significantly to reduce the flow of information into the public domain. We recommend that the proposed new charging regime be withdrawn.

“The proposed regime could result in public authorities avoiding answers to embarrassing, contentious or high-profile cases as the number of internal consultees rises in proportion to the sensitivity of particular requests.“

The Committee says the Bill for an exemption from the FOI Act, passed by the Commons but currently stalled in the House of Lords, “would be contrary to the culture of openness which we have argued should prevail in the public service.”

Rt Hon Alan Beith MP, Chairman of the Committee, said:

“The Freedom of Information Act works. It enhances the rights of the public. Neither the Government nor MPs should be seeking to limit its effectiveness, and there is no evidence here to support either the Government's proposals on fees or the Bill. I am hopeful that both will now be dropped.”

The Committee also expresses concern that Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) does not have sufficient resources to deliver an effective FOI complaints resolution service - especially with the predicted increase in complaints if the proposed fees changes were brought in - and repeats its call for the ICO to be made independent of Government and instead funded by and accountable to Parliament. “We question whether it is appropriate for the Ministry of Justice to set the funding levels for the independent regulator and thereby directly influence its capacity to investigate complaints.” "

Read the Committee's full report:
HTML version
Pdf version

Brown to kill off fees regulations proposals

From The Telegraph:

"Gordon Brown is poised to kill off moves by the Lord Chancellor to water down the Freedom of Information Act, it became clear last night.
...
The Lord Chancellor's proposals would mean the cost of inquiries included the time that officials took to decide whether to accede to a request, not just the time it took to track down the information. Sources said last night that Mr Brown felt Lord Falconer's plans were unsustainable.

However, while the Chancellor is prepared to block them when he moves into No 10, he believes that Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, needs to beef up his response to genuinely vexatious inquiries."

Full story here.

New consultation on fees regulations

The DCA today published a supplementary consultation paper on the draft fees regulations inviting views on the principle of amending the existing regulations. The consultation paper states:

"There have been over 200 responses to the consultation exercise, which closed on 08 March 2007, with a wide range of comments received. The responses to the consultation exercise will be published along with any responses to this paper in due course. Some of the responses received have commented on the principle of making these changes and other responses have stated they would have welcomed an opportunity to comment on the principle of the changes or have suggested that there may be better ways of tackling those cases which create a disproportionate burden on public authorities.

The Government wishes to make clear that it is keen to hear all those views, and it has therefore decided to issue this supplementary paper extending the original consultation. The Government invites responses on the points set out in this document and also any other general comments on the principle of making changes to the existing regulations or ways of tackling the problems identified. Those who wish to comment are asked to do so by 21 June 2007."

Read the supplementary consultation paper and accompanying DCA press release.

The Campaign for Freedom of Information has issued a press release welcoming the announcement.

Constitutional Affairs Committee evidence published

An uncorrected transcript of the evidence given by the Information Commissioner on the draft fees regulations to the Constitutional Affairs Committee on 20 March has been published.

"Q31 Mr Khabra: Last year you told the Committee, Mr Thomas, that you believed that the existing fees regime was working well and that it had "all the advantages of being simple, clear and straightforward and not being a deterrent." You say that much of the "mischief", as you called it, which the draft regulations are apparently designed to address can be addressed using the existing provisions of the Act. What then do you believe will be the actual impact of the proposed regulations?

Richard Thomas: Thank you very much. That is a very large question. I will do my best to address it. You are quite right, I did say last year (and I stand-by the words) that I believe the existing fees regime is simple, clear and straightforward and does not appear to act as a deterrent to requesters. In overall terms, I do not consider freedom of information is proving to be burdensome for public authorities, and I think the benefits, especially in terms of improved transparency, accountability and democracy are clear. I am mainly concerned about the practicalities of the proposals which are now under consideration. I recognise that the amount of what I call genuinely public interest information that would be released into the public domain will be significantly reduced, but I am concerned about the practicalities for myself, for my office and for public authorities generally. You refer to the existing provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. A very important provision is section 14 of the Act, which sets out an exclusion for a request which is vexatious or for a repeated request. I have to say very frankly to this Committee that I am surprised that government departments and other public authorities are not using these provisions' exclusion for vexatious requests to any great extent. If there is a problem with this sort of request, then why is it that we are not being presented time after time with refused requests on the ground that they are vexatious? If there is a real problem in this area, then I make no secret, it is my view that a more robust use of the existing exclusion would to a very significant extent address the mischief at which the new cost proposals are directed. It is nearly two years now since my office published detailed guidance on section 14, which took a liberal interpretation, if you like, of section 14 and made it clear that we will be as supportive as possible of responsible public authorities dealing with genuine vexatious requests. We have also since that time issued quite a number of decision notices upholding the conclusion of a public authority in a particular case that a particular request was vexatious. I think we have shared some details of these with the Committee for the purposes of today's inquiry. Looking at the new proposals, I fear that they will introduce new layers of procedural and, indeed, bureaucratic complexity. I think it would be very difficult for public authorities themselves, and certainly for my office, to start to measure and assess the reading and especially the consideration time of civil servants and other public officials. Civil servants do not keep time sheets, there is no regular record of exactly how much time is spent on which activity, but these draft regulations seem to indicate that that sort of substantiation of how much time was spent in reading, consulting, considering a particular request will be needed. I have to say, I am anxious (and I wish to share the anxiety with the Committee) about the volume of complaints which we are going to receive under the new regulations, because there will be the scope for an appeal to come to my office. If somebody believes that the new regulations have been improperly or incorrectly used to exclude their request, then they will come to my office and we will have to investigate, and, unless we are properly funded for this, there is a real prospect that our existing scarce resources will have to be spent with resolving these difficult, complex disputes about the new regulations, about the time being taken to deal with cases rather than resolving the substantive issues about what information should be disclosed under the terms of the Act. So, a long answer, I am afraid, to your question, which was a very wide-ranging question, and I make no secret that we do have anxieties about the practical implications of these proposals."

The Committee also heard evidence from Rob Evans of The Guardian and Tim Jones of the World Development Movement on how they had been using the Act.

Read the full transcript.

Draft fees regulations - Campaign's response

The Campaign for Freedom of Information has published its response to the draft fees regulations consultation paper. The response raises an important new point about the draft regulations:

"Some FOI practitioners have suggested to us that they are not minded to rely on the new fees regulations, but will continue to respond to requests as they have in the past. The new powers would only be used exceptionally, if at all. Although we recognise the positive intention behind such statements they suggest that the new proposals are not needed. They also overlook a key aspect of the fees regulations.

An authority which provides information which it believes it could have refused on cost grounds would be disclosing information voluntarily, outside the scope of the Act. Applicants would lose any right to complain to the Information Commissioner about withheld information or delays."

Read the Campaign's full response. Some of the other responses from the media and voluntary sector can be read here.

Full text of Lord Falconer's speech

The DCA has released the full text of the speech given by Lord Falconer at the Lord Williams of Mostyn Memorial Lecture last night. Interestingly, on the proposed changes to the FOI fees regime, Lord Falconer said "we are consulting on whether it is right to include reading, consideration and consultation time" (emphasis added). This statement contrasts with the consultation document, which only sought views on the draft regulations themselves.

Martin Rosenbaum over on Open Secrets has commented on another part of the speech, in which Lord Falconer talked about the proposal to allow authorities to aggregate unrelated requests for the purpose of calculating the cost limit. Lord Falconer said that if the requests were "genuinely different then aggregation should not apply". This isn't, however, what the draft regulations say.

Today's Independent has a further article and leader on the lecture:

Freedom of Information Act misused, says Falconer

Leading article: The retreat from open government

Information Commissioner's views on fees proposals

The Information Commissioner Richard Thomas gave evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee about the likely impact of the government's fees proposals on his office and public authorities. The evidence session was broadcast on Parliament Live and an archive is available to watch. The Commissioner's comments have been covered by The Independent and Guardian:

Plans to curb access to freedom of information would be 'unworkable' - Independent

"The Government's proposals to reduce access to Britain's freedom of information laws will be unworkable and add to the bureaucracy of Whitehall, the legislation's independent watchdog has warned. Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, says he has "grave doubts" over measures aimed at curbing the right of MPs, campaign groups and the media to use the powers. In response to Labour's rethink on freedom of information, Mr Thomas also predicted that the proposed change to the rules would lead to a "surge" of difficult complaints to his office."

MPs warned over curbs on freedom of information - Guardian

"Plans to curb people's ability to ask for data from the state under the Freedom of Information Act will "significantly reduce" the number of disclosures in the public interest, MPs were warned yesterday. Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, in effect called on the government to drop the plans, telling the constitutional affairs committee that the proposed curbs "will introduce new layers of procedural and bureaucratic complexity"."

Today's papers also contain extracts of a speech Lord Falconer will give this evening at The Lord Williams of Mostyn Memorial Lecture:

'Freedom of information for the public' - Daily Mail

"Freedom of information is mainly for the public and not the press, the Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer is due to say. "People not the press must be the priority. There is a right to know, not a right to tell," he is set to say. In delivering the Lord Williams of Mostyn memorial lecture, Lord Falconer also insists the Government is fully committed to openness."

'Openness is 'for public, not press' - Metro

"Whitehall has been opened up 'in ways unimagined, unattempted and unrealised by any previous Government', Lord Falconer will say when he delivers the Lord Williams of Mostyn memorial lecture...'We need to strike the right balance, whether it is in the courts over data or in relation to FoI requests.'"

EDM on fees proposals - update

124 MPs have now signed EDM 845 calling on the government not to proceed with its proposed fees regulations. The Campaign's website has a list of MPs that have signed. If your MP is not on the list, you can still ask them to sign.

An equivalent motion in the Welsh Assembly has been supported by 14 Assembly Members. See here for details.

Outcome of FOI Review in Scotland
The Scottish Executive has today announced the outcome of its review of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act. The main conclusion is that there will be no change to the fees regulations under the Scottish Act. These are significantly more generous to applicants than the existing UK fees regulations and the fact that the Scottish Executive is content to leave them as they are, after carrying out a thorough consultation, indicates a remarkably more positive approach to the issue than the UK government.

Minister for Parliamentary Business, Margaret Curran said:

"We will not be revising the Fee Regulations at this stage. The Review did not provide conclusive evidence to underpin any decisions on changes to the Fee Regulations at this point. However, I want to ensure that Freedom of Information is properly striking a balance between encouraging use of the Act by the public in making requests for information, but not imposing an unreasonable burden on authorities in their compliance with FOI. I will therefore be initiating comprehensive work on determining how the Fee Regulations are working in practice across Scotland and if they are striking the right balance for public authorities and people making requests."

The Review's other conclusions are:

Extending the coverage of Freedom of Information to organisations which are not Scottish public authorities

"It has always been our intention to use the power to extend coverage when appropriate and proportionate, and the Review has gathered initial views on what bodies could be considered for coverage...I will therefore be asking officials to examine in detail the many strong but competing arguments in relation to extending the coverage of the Act, and to finalise the conditions for coverage and test these against the suggested bodies throughout Summer 2007. We will consult directly with those bodies which Ministers decide to be suitable for inclusion under the Act by the end of 2007.

Removing unnecessary prohibitions to the disclosure of information

"The Scottish Ministers are committed to reducing those laws that prohibit disclosure of information. I am therefore pleased to say that we will remove unnecessary existing prohibitions on disclosure of information which are currently contained in other older legislation."

Updating the list of Scottish public authorities

"Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act lists all the Scottish public authorities for the purposes of the Act. It is clearly important that this list is kept up-to-date where Scottish public authorities have been created or have ceased to exist, and we will therefore be carrying out an exercise to ensure that this is the case."

Read the full announcement

Constitutional Affairs Committee - evidence session re-scheduled

The FOI evidence session on the draft fees regulations which had to be postponed has now been re-scheduled.

Details from a Committee press notice:

Tuesday 20 March in The Grimond Room, Portcullis House

At 4.15 pm: Rob Evans, The Guardian, and Tim Jones, Policy Officer, World Development Movement

At 4.45 pm: Richard Thomas, Information Commissioner; Graham Smith, Deputy Information Commissioner and Jane Durkin, Assistant Information Commissioner

Draft fees regulations - responses to consultation

12 Mar 2007 : Column 114W

Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many submissions her Department received in response to the consultation on the draft Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2007; if she will post all responses on her Department’s website; and when the final regulations are expected to be laid before Parliament. [126501]

Vera Baird: My Department has received 182 replies to the consultation on the draft Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2007. The consultation closed on 8 March 2007.

We will publish a summary of the responses to the document in line with the consultation code of practice set out by the Cabinet Office, which will be available on the departmental website.

We will analyse the responses to the consultation exercise before considering laying regulations.

FOI fees - PQs

22 Feb 2007 : Column 867W
Mr. Wills: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs when she expects to bring forward new fees regulations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [121763]

Vera Baird: The public consultation on the proposed amendments to the fee regulations closes on 8 March 2007. Only after the consultation responses have been carefully analysed and considered will the question of laying regulations before Parliament be addressed.

Mr. Wills: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs when she expects to publish the results of the current consultation on fees regulations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [121764]

Vera Baird: A summary of the responses to the consultation will be published within three months of the end of the consultation period in line with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Consultation.

23 Feb 2007 : Column 968W
Mr. Wills: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost to Government Departments involved in the one week monitoring exercise in January 2006 of the time needed to respond to Freedom of Information requests. [121762]

Ms Harman: Frontier Economics, using the data collected in the one week monitoring exercise, estimated that the total cost in officials' time of dealing with FOI requests across central government is£8.6 million.

A detailed breakdown of the total annual cost to central Government of handling FOI requests can be found at annex 1 of the Frontier Economics report, which is available in the Libraries of the House.


27 Feb 2007 : Column 1269W
Mr. Wills: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs if she will make an estimate of the effect of the draft fees regulations proposed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on the number of parliamentary questions asked. [122649]

Vera Baird: My Department has no plans to estimate the effect of the draft FOI fees regulations on the number of parliamentary questions asked.

There is no link between requests submitted under the Freedom of Information Act and parliamentary questions. Members of Parliament will continue to be able to ask for information under both regimes.

Mr. Wills: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of Freedom of Information requests answered by the Government in 2005-06 likely to be refused under the proposals contained in the draft fees regulations under the Freedom of InformationAct 2000. [122652]

Vera Baird: My Department's estimates are based on the results of the independent review conducted by economic consultancy firm Frontier Economics, published on 16 October 2006.

Table 3 of their report estimates that including reading, consideration and consultation time in calculating the appropriate limit would result in a 4 per cent. volume reduction of requests processed within the appropriate limit across central Government.

If the aggregation of non-similar requests was introduced it would result in an 8 per cent. volume reduction of requests processed within the appropriate limit across central Government.

These figures are the estimated volume reductions for introducing each option on its own and are not additive.

Under the Act authorities are not obliged to answer a request if it is estimated to exceed the appropriate limit, but may still choose to do so. The request volume reduction figures in the Frontier Economics report are upper-band figures and assume that Government bodies apply the provisions in all cases where possible and do not exercise discretion in application.

Where authorities are refusing on the ground of cost, they are under a statutory obligation to provide advice and assistance to enable the requestor to refine their request so that it can be processed within the appropriate cost limit.

The independent review showed that a small minority of requests and requestors account for disproportionate amounts of the cost of answering FOI requests. Our proposals are designed to address this issue by targeting the 5 per cent. of requests that account for 45 per cent. of the time spent dealing with initial requests, as detailed at Figure 5 of the Frontier Economics report.

Norman Baker: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many and what percentage of requests received by central Government in 2006 under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 were refused on the grounds of disproportionate cost; and how many and what percentage she estimates would have been refused had the fee structure changes presently proposed been in force throughout 2006. [123794]

Vera Baird: The 2006 annual statistics on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act in central Government have not yet been published. The most recent statistics available are for Q1, Q2 and Q3 2006.

Central Government received 18,500 resolvable requests during Q1, Q2 and Q3 2006 of which 816 (4.4 per cent.) were refused on the grounds they exceeded the appropriate cost limit.

Table 3 of the Frontier Economics report published on 16 October 2006 estimates that including reading, consideration and consultation time in calculating the appropriate limit would result in a 4 per cent. volume reduction of requests processed within the appropriate limit across central Government. If the aggregation of non-similar requests is introduced the report estimates an 8 per cent. volume reduction of requests processed within the appropriate limit across central Government.

These figures are the estimated volume reductions for introducing each option on its own and are not additive.

Under the Act authorities are not obliged to answer a request if it is estimated to exceed the appropriate limit, but may still choose to do so.

The request volume reduction figures in the Frontier Economics report are upper-band figures and assume that government bodies apply the provisions in all cases where possible and do not exercise discretion in application.

Where authorities refuse on cost grounds they are under a statutory obligation to provide advice and assistance to enable the requestor to refine their request so that it can be processed within the appropriate cost limit.

The independent review showed that a small minority of requests and requestors account for disproportionate amounts of the cost of answering FOI requests. Our proposals are designed to address this issue by targeting the 5 per cent. of requests that account for 45 per cent. of the time spent dealing with initial requests, as detailed at figure 5 of the Frontier Economics report.

6 Mar 2007 : Column WA32
Lord Smith of Finsbury asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they have made an estimate of (a) the change in the number of complaints likely to be made to the Information Commissioner as a result of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2007, if implemented; and (b) the effect of those complaints on the Information Commissioner's ability to deal with the existing backlog of complaints. [HL2127]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): The partial regulatory impact assessment published on 14 December 2006 as part of the consultation on the draft Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2007 recognises that in the immediate aftermath of the changes there will be an increase in the number of appeals against the application of the fee regulations leading to an increase in associated costs. It is impossible to say with any certainty how significant these costs might be. It is reasonable to assume that the increase will be confined to the immediate aftermath of the changes. The publication of detailed guidance on the new regulations, together with the provision of appropriate advice and assistance by public authorities, will reduce the impact on the Information Commissioner.

The Information Commissioner is considering the impact of the changes on his office and we will discuss this with him as part of the consultation process.

6 Mar 2007 : Column 1896W
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans she has to revise the Explanatory Notes on the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) published on 8 January 2001 to take account of (a) decisions of the Information Commissioner and (b) proposals for new regulations on FOI fees; and if she will make a statement. [124651]

Vera Baird: It is not practice to amend Explanatory Notes to an Act.

Officials in my Department will continue to review and update guidance to support the Act in light of experience and changes since the Act came into force.

FOI and academic research

An article by Steve Wood, the founder of this blog, in the Guardian's Education section, warns that the proposed changes to the FOI Act could restrict the work of researchers:

"The concern is that an important method of gathering information from public bodies, which can enhance academic research, will be rendered ineffective. This is very early into the life of FOI, and just as academics are starting to realise its potential. Concerned academics and researchers should make submissions detailing their worries to the Department of Constitutional Affairs."

The article contains some good examples of academics' use of the Act. It's on Guardian's website.

Lord Falconer on FOI

Lord Falconer spoke about the importance of FOI and the government's proposed restrictions on access in a speech at the Canadian High Commission this morning:

"This Government took the unprecedented step, in the UK, of introducing the Freedom of Information Act.

It has been the single most significant act of any Government, in improving transparency, accessibility and accountability. It is the platform for building an improved relationship between the citizen and the state – in which the public can have a greater stake in how they are governed.

FOI was introduced to fundamentally alter the relationship between citizen and state. To re-establish trust in Government, to break down the cultural and institutional barriers that had historically put the public on the outside. A modern Liberal democracy is grounded on much more than the intermittent right to vote. It is must also be based on increased participation from the people. Enabling the public to see how and why the decisions impacting on them were made – is crucial in improving this relationship."

"We are currently consulting on new fee regulations proposals in order to ensure that the price we pay is not a reduction in the accessibility of Government. The FOI Act has been enormously successful - the vast majority have been for key information about issues- especially local issues – that have a real impact on peoples’ lives.

Many however are not so responsible. FOI was not introduced for finding out how many windows there are at Department for Education and Skills – or for how much Government spends on loo-roll. For instance we have subsidised the BBC’s research to the tune of about £1million since the Act came in."

Martin Rosenbaum has explained previously on his Open Secrets blog why the cost estimate of £1m for the BBC's use of the Act is exaggerated.

The full text of the Lord Falconer's speech is on the DCA website.

Stop this assault on the right to know - Daily Mail 6/3/07

"Amidst all the recriminations over Iraq and cash-for-honours there is at least one legacy of which Tony Blair could be proud: his Government's introduction of the Freedom of Information Act — a monument to a more open society, with the promise of better governance.

How sadly significant that even before he has left office it looks as if that reform is going to be utterly emasculated."

Fees proposals - media update

Editors unite over FoI changes - Guardian Media 28/2/07
"An unprecedented coalition of national newspaper editors have personally lobbied government information minister Baroness Ashton in an attempt to head off proposed freedom of information changes.

The group of editors left the meeting with information rights minister Baroness Catherine Ashton of Upholland largely unsatisfied, despite her being "genuinely conciliatory" about the proposed changes and telling editors that "nothing was decided".

Curbs on freedom of information are 'best option' - FT 28/2/07
"Proposals put forward by the government to stop over-burdensome requests under the Freedom of Information Act remain "the best option" currently available, according to the minister responsible for the act."

"If there is a better solution, I would be interested in it," Baroness Ashton said, making clear that the government was consulting beyond the technical questions it had asked on its proposals.

Point of information. More, not less, please - The Times Comment 1/3/07
"The Government describes its proposals as a “blunt instrument”, but that it will be tempered through guidance to be as cooperative as possible. This is naive. Many of those who use FoI regularly have discovered that, while some public bodies bend over backwards to be helpful, others can be less so."

Are we too close to them, or are they too close to us? - Independent Media 4/3/07
"The consultation period ends on Thursday, after which the minister has three months to distil what she has heard, after which it's summer, after which different fingerprints will be on the No 10 doorknob. Having waited all this time for the top job, does Gordon Brown want to make watering down FoI one of his first actions?"

It works, so leave it alone - Sunday Times Leader 4/3/07
"One of Labour’s finer achievements has been to introduce freedom of information to Britain. It has allowed the press and public to root around in government departments and other public authorities to examine the nuts and bolts of how we are governed."

Freedom of information was hard-won: it must not be diluted now - New Statesman 5/3/07
"No government wants its secrets revealed. We should not be surprised that, in power, new Labour is less enthusiastic about "sharing information with the people" than it was in opposition. But Blair was right in 1996. His colleagues should resist pressure to backtrack on a nobly intended piece of legislation which may even be one of the Prime Minister's greatest legacies."

A corrosive compromise - Guardian Leader 5/3/07
"...there is no need for change. The act - itself a compromise - is generally working to the benefit of citizens. It would be an act of folly to emasculate one of the initiatives of which New Labour can feel justifiably proud."

Right to know - The Times Leader 5/3/07
"Politicians find it easy to talk of open government in opposition, but it goes against the grain when they are in power. That is why the Freedom of Information Act, which came into effect in 2005, was such a rare and courageous piece of legislation. It has started to open doors to citizens who pay taxes and who rightly expect to hold their representatives to account. But less than two years into its life, ministers seem to have taken fright."

Also from Monday's Times:
Your right to know - and how the State is trying to stop you
59 things that would have stayed secret